HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Will the Rangers hit 3 goals per game under AV?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-02-2013, 08:59 AM
  #1
SouthJerseyRanger
Registered User
 
SouthJerseyRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 1,041
vCash: 500
Will the Rangers hit 3 goals per game under AV?

The Vancouver Canucks were able to in 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12... but didn't in the weird lockout season.

Can AV being the same offensive success to the Rangers?

SouthJerseyRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 09:10 AM
  #2
broadwayblue
Registered User
 
broadwayblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 15,635
vCash: 500
No, at least not this year I don't believe we will be a top 6 offense in the NHL. I'll be happy improving from 2.63/2.71 of the last two seasons to 2.80 or so.


Last edited by broadwayblue: 08-02-2013 at 09:38 AM.
broadwayblue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 09:23 AM
  #3
HatTrick Swayze
Tomato Potato
 
HatTrick Swayze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 9,286
vCash: 500
Absolutely not. I would be shocked.

When the Rangers have two players like the Sedins, IMO the two most under-appreciate stars of the last 5+ years, who can single-handedly create offense for 20 minutes a night...sure.

Although apparently the only reason why they couldn't hit that number last year was Torts. All aboard the NYR summer hype train!

__________________
"Here we can see the agression of american people. They love fighting and guns. when they wont win they try to kill us all." -HalfOfFame
HatTrick Swayze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 10:22 AM
  #4
Glen Teflon Sather
Like A Boss
 
Glen Teflon Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Bloomfield, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 4,869
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Glen Teflon Sather
Please, don't make me spit out my morning coffee while dying from laughter

Glen Teflon Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 10:34 AM
  #5
RangerBoy
#freejtmiller
 
RangerBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 31,751
vCash: 500
Why not? More offensive starts in the offensive zone for the offensive guys. The Rangers have better depth at center. More offense out of the bottom six. A small improvement in the PP. Any improvement in the PP. A different defensive system. Less shot blocking. The forwards won't collapse down low leaving the points unguarded. The forwards might actually get the puck in open space. Better puck possession. Torts wants to the bring the Ranger style of shot blocking to VAN. More puck possession. Samuelsson should really help the Rangers D. He helped Yandle learn how to defend and then get up into the play. Marc Staal told Jim Cerny how much he liked working with Samuelsson in the spring of 2006 at Hartford. Get more O from the D. Kreider is the X factor. Skating ability. Size. Danny Kristo is a right handed shot which helps the Rangers PP. AV said even having one righty shot changes the PP. In VAN,they played all lefties without Kesler who was always hurt. The Rangers have Stepan and Callahan. The latter will miss the first 2 weeks with the shoulder.

RangerBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 10:37 AM
  #6
Matt4776
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Matt4776's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,582
vCash: 500
I will wear my NYJ Brett Favre jersey everyday from June 2014-October if the Rangers score more than 3 GPG next year.

Matt4776 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 10:50 AM
  #7
Blue Blooded
Registered User
 
Blue Blooded's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Handicap spot
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,734
vCash: 504
To hit 3 G/G we need a working PP, and I don't think we have enough PP skilled right handed players to pull off anything above mediocre in that regard.

The top 5v5 scoring teams Chicago and Tampa scored 2.25 5v5G/G. The Rangers had awful shooting luck but still managed a 13th place with 1.90. That should increase just by regression, and the personnel changes in the offseason should improve it even further. I could see them improve to something like 2.0-2.05 which likely puts us somewhere 5th-8th.

Now to the PP, or rather the 5v4 PP. Washington led the league with 0.833 5v4G/G, we had less than half of that (0.416) which put us 23rd. I won't count on a very big improvement, but let's say we improve to 0.45.

That would give us ~2.5G/G 5v5+5v4, leading Pittsburgh had 2.94 last year.

Add ~0.33 G/G from the other situations (5v3, 4v4, 4v5, EN, PS, etc.) and we get 2.83 which should put us somewhere around 6th-10th in GF.

With Hank and our D, that puts us into contention for highest goal differential in the league and likely for the President's Trophy as well.

Blue Blooded is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 10:52 AM
  #8
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,435
vCash: 500
I'd be surprised if they did, but if a lot of kids take major steps forward, it wouldn't be impossible.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 11:34 AM
  #9
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,801
vCash: 500
3 goals per game is a lot. I think loosening the reigns will create a small boost to the offense, hopefully without sacrificing anything on the defensive side of the puck. But, overall, I dont think we have good enough players to average 3 per game the entire season.

The Sedins aren't walking through that door.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 11:47 AM
  #10
Brian Boyle
portnor, pls
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,742
vCash: 659
I think it's funny, when Vigneault was hired in 2006 by the Canucks, he was the guy that was going to tighten them up. When Torts was hired here, well.... http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=667953

Now their both totally re-branded for their new teams.

It's fun to imagine that the team will be drastically different under Vigneault, but I think it's being oversold.


__________________
Rangers Unlimited
Hockey Graphs
Brian Boyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 11:54 AM
  #11
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
I think it's funny, when Vigneault was hired in 2006 by the Canucks, he was the guy that was going to tighten them up. When Torts was hired here, well.... http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=667953

Now their both totally re-branded for their new teams.

It's fun to imagine that the team will be drastically different under Vigneault, but I think it's being oversold.

I think its the underlying reason that people whine for a coaching change -- so they can get a new guy that they can project their hopes and dreams onto.

Unfortunately, the realism of rosters catch up with new coaches and this sort of attitude. I find it incredible that people could watch this happen with the Rangers over and over again, and still moan about how the coach (whoever it may be) is the problem and not the guy that hired that coach and built an inadequate roster.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 12:03 PM
  #12
M Gaz
Au revoir Shosanna!
 
M Gaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 1,726
vCash: 50
Nash and Stepan =/= the Sedins. All I want is for AV to get our PP out of the basement and get us to start scoring in the playoffs.

M Gaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 12:09 PM
  #13
Loffen
Wen Kroy
 
Loffen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Soft euro
Posts: 17,109
vCash: 500
3 GPG average? lolwat. These guys? Nein. We've seen way too many golden chances on open nets wasted over the years.






I hope I'm wrong though.

Loffen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 12:12 PM
  #14
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I think its the underlying reason that people whine for a coaching change -- so they can get a new guy that they can project their hopes and dreams onto.

Unfortunately, the realism of rosters catch up with new coaches and this sort of attitude. I find it incredible that people could watch this happen with the Rangers over and over again, and still moan about how the coach (whoever it may be) is the problem and not the guy that hired that coach and built an inadequate roster.
Agree--though with the caveat that 'maybe' Torts days here had come. Really though bringing in Nash meant losing a lot of guys that were important to the success of the 2011-12 team and Slats did a really ****** job of replacing them. Sather during his time here has made a number of good moves/trades--he's also had a lot of stinkers--some of which he was able to pawn off on other teams. His first few seasons as GM of the Rangers were atrocious.

The main thing is if you want to score a lot of goals--1) you need the right personnel and 2) usually there's a defensive trade off--as you tend to give up more goals. Really to me this constant mantra 'we don't score enough' is overrated. To me scoring enough comes down to scoring one more goal than the opposition in any given game.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 12:16 PM
  #15
KreiMeARiver
Have Confidence
 
KreiMeARiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UES
Posts: 6,590
vCash: 500
If Stepan and Brassard take that next step as playmakers, Kreider lives up to potential, Richards returns to form, and Kristo surprises, then yes....it's possible. haha

Highly unlikely, though.

KreiMeARiver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 12:59 PM
  #16
Inferno
HFB Partner
 
Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Atlanta, GA
Country: United States
Posts: 19,859
vCash: 500
i dont think its easy to say 1 way or another. i could easily see both cases being possible.

the rangers couldnt really score a lot because their PP sucked
fix the PP, get a little more offensive production from Brad Richards and Kreider, and yeah, i could see us getting the 3 mark.

Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 12:59 PM
  #17
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eco's bones View Post
Agree--though with the caveat that 'maybe' Torts days here had come. Really though bringing in Nash meant losing a lot of guys that were important to the success of the 2011-12 team and Slats did a really ****** job of replacing them. Sather during his time here has made a number of good moves/trades--he's also had a lot of stinkers--some of which he was able to pawn off on other teams. His first few seasons as GM of the Rangers were atrocious.

The main thing is if you want to score a lot of goals--1) you need the right personnel and 2) usually there's a defensive trade off--as you tend to give up more goals. Really to me this constant mantra 'we don't score enough' is overrated. To me scoring enough comes down to scoring one more goal than the opposition in any given game.
Again, I have a pretty tough time fully endorsing the bolded statement given the roster turnover and the short season -- ESPECIALLY being it came off the Rangers most successful season in a generation.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 02:07 PM
  #18
eco's bones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Elmira NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,360
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Again, I have a pretty tough time fully endorsing the bolded statement given the roster turnover and the short season -- ESPECIALLY being it came off the Rangers most successful season in a generation.
I know a lot of posters here were after Torts' head. I don't think I was really one of them--though I thought that at least some criticisms against him had a kernel of truth. I don't however necessarily think that any of his potential replacements are going to do better or aren't going to be subject to the same kind of critiques shoved Torts' way a couple years down the road from now. Anyway there were things about Tortorella--not just on ice that rubbed a bit the wrong way at times.

Any team is going to have strengths and weaknesses. The Rangers strength quite naturally (just because of Lundqvist) is from the goal on out and the further out from the goal the weaker the team is. By contrast the Flyers are strong up front year to year but goal and defense is always a bit shaky and in the long run--a good D with some offense tends to be better than a good O with some defense. Getting both good offense and good defense at the same time in a cap world is a real trick. You need good drafting-- astute free agent signings and trades knowing all along that the window for keeping what you got together is going to be very small. And if we're going to be critiquing Sather--he makes too many mistakes even if he has a talent for dumping them on someone else. Each mistake at the least is a time delay that sets the team back for a while until it's rectified.

eco's bones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 02:16 PM
  #19
Punxrocknyc19*
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,233
vCash: 500
imagine if the power play continues to struggle....

Punxrocknyc19* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 02:28 PM
  #20
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 9,618
vCash: 500
The last time the Rangers averaged 3 goals a game was in 2005-06, which was a high scoring season due to teams adjusting to the new post-lockout rules. 16 teams averaged 3 or more goals a game that year.

Since then, there are usually around 3-5 teams that are capable of scoring 3 goals a game on a regular basis. Looking at this team's roster, I highly doubt the Rangers will be one of those teams.

OverTheCap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 04:32 PM
  #21
Raspewtin
MayDeathNeverStopYou
 
Raspewtin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Howard Beach, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 8,337
vCash: 500
Possible, but not probable. Like someone else mentioned, if their PP is at LEAST effective, and they score in the playoffs, I don't even care. But I don't think high 2 low 3 is impossible. Just the roster has a lot of question marks (Kreider? Zucc? Brass and Step repeat? Richie?) If Kreider and Zucc breakout and Richie does 60-65 points, it's absolutely possible.

Raspewtin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 04:42 PM
  #22
Aufheben
Moderator
Crick Nash
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The jam must flow...
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,346
vCash: 130
Why stop at 3? I think we'll see a slight increase, but it's hard to imagine the New York Rangers averaging 3 goals a game. Could you imagine how happy that would make Hank?

Aufheben is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 05:35 PM
  #23
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by broadwayblue View Post
No, at least not this year I don't believe we will be a top 6 offense in the NHL. I'll be happy improving from 2.63/2.71 of the last two seasons to 2.80 or so.
There is a bit of a "multiple" though when it comes to scoring goals, that is attributable to the opposition.

There are high scoring teams and low scoring teams in this league. All teams have good nights and off nights.

But, if you are a strong defensive team that struggles offensively; the high scoring teams will make sure not to give anything away; the low scoring team will make sure not to give away even an inch because the first goal in that game often wins it all; teams will have a tendency to show up against you because they know a point is easily won if you play it thight; and so forth and so forth.

If you get a rep as a run and gun team, you also will play diffrent opponents. Games open up. And a game that is 4-3 after 30 minutes, often ends 6-5 because teams aren't afraid that one misstake might cost them the game because they know they can score goals etc.

In the end, AV is not a offensive coach. It's an oxymoron to call a coach offensive minded. You can't attack without the puck and if you can't defend you cant attack.

AV will not handcuff his players to the same extreme extent as Torts, but it will take time to substitute those plays Torts drilled in with something more creative. It also takes personel changes.

So I have no reason to expect big changes. But if we loosen up a little bit, it could show more in terms of GF and GA because of the dynamics of a hockey game.

Ola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 08:30 PM
  #24
Riche16
Pessimistic-Realist
 
Riche16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: FL
Country: United States
Posts: 3,436
vCash: 500
No

Not without a PP

Riche16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-02-2013, 09:00 PM
  #25
Oak
Hockey fan
 
Oak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 50
I highly doubt it but I expect a slight 5v5 improvement. All I am really hoping for is an improvement on our PP. If AV can succeed in that I will be very happy.

Oak is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.